The Big Four are Over

[Kieran]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

I agree with Murray not belonging to the group to begin with. I did not want to get into it
partly to not hurt the Andy fans by telling the truth and partly because that is not the main point
of the thread (even though it is relevant). The thread is arguing about the demise of Big 4, even though the Big 4 may not have existed to begin with.

Exactly. I always thought of it as the Big 3+1, but now it's just the Big 1, or the Big Confusion of Who's Who Anymore...

 

[Fiero425]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

I agree with Murray not belonging to the group to begin with. I did not want to get into it
partly to not hurt the Andy fans by telling the truth and partly because that is not the main point
of the thread (even though it is relevant). The thread is arguing about the demise of Big 4, even though the Big 4 may not have existed to begin with.

I'm sure if you look back you will see posts of mines and others that have been saying in different ways that the "Big 4" is a misnomer and even the "Big 3" is no more with Nole clearly on top, then Murray, then the rest of the tour with Federer and Nadal barely holding on to their status of being elite! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Front242]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

Size isn't important :snicker Actually that's probably not true

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

I agree with Murray not belonging to the group to begin with. I did not want to get into it
partly to not hurt the Andy fans by telling the truth and partly because that is not the main point
of the thread (even though it is relevant). The thread is arguing about the demise of Big 4, even though the Big 4 may not have existed to begin with.

i agree with both of you - well, the 3+1. i think Muzzah does deserve an honorary mention, as he was very clearly the best of the rest (think 10 Master titles against 1 for basically anyone else; plus Olympic gold). still, he was prematurely and not really deservedly included in the Big Four, probably in part due to the fact that the Anglo-/-American fans/journos/sponsors might be missing representation otherwise...
anyway, the point was: he was included by a lot of people, so that's why i took him into the consideration as well. (actually without him, we'd be even further from the Big Three - because Fed's recent results, while more stable, are less stellar; and in the defining 08-12 years, Murray's results marked the lower end of what can be considered "Big". if we restrict the definition to the Big Three, the threshold is much higher, and Rafa/Roger's lack of big time wins makes the end of that era even more obvious).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

JS, Here is a simple scheme.

Take only the 2 previous years from the current moment. Consider only the 14 Biggies (4 GS, 9 MS and 1 WTF). Don't even give credit for finalists, semifinalists etc. Give points, exactly how much they earned, only for the winners. So, for an year the maximum points will be 8000 (4GS) + 9000 (9 MS) + 1500 (WTF) = 18,500. For two years, it will be 37,000 points. Among these points, during the last two year (From Wimbledon 2013 to RG 2015), only 8000 Points are won by Non-Big-Four players (2 Slams by Man, 1 by DA, Monte-Carlo by Man and Canada by Tsonga). That works out to 21.62% of the market share by Non Big Four Players while 78.38% of the market share of available points is still held by Big Four Players.

When we reach a time where the Big-4's total in the above scheme is not higher than some other 4's total (with a difference of more than one player), we can either retire the "Big Four" Phrase or change the composition of Big Four or reduce the size of Big something. Until then the phrase "Big Four" is still meaningful and not just for historic reasons.

While we are certainly getting there, we are not there yet.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

JS, Here is a simple scheme.

Take only the 2 previous years from the current moment. Consider only the 14 Biggies (4 GS, 9 MS and 1 WTF). Don't even give credit for finalists, semifinalists etc. Give points, exactly how much they earned, only for the winners. So, for an year the maximum points will be 8000 (4GS) + 9000 (9 MS) + 1500 (WTF) = 18,500. For two years, it will be 37,000 points. Among these points, during the last two year (From Wimbledon 2013 to RG 2015), only 8000 Points are won by Non-Big-Four players (2 Slams by Man, 1 by DA, Monte-Carlo by Man and Canada by Tsonga). That works out to 21.62% of the market share by Non Big Four Players while 78.38% of the market share of available points is still held by Big Four Players.

When we reach a time where the Big-4's total in the above scheme is not higher than some other 4's total (with a difference of more than one player), we can either retire the "Big Four" Phrase or change the composition of Big Four or reduce the size of Big something. Until then the phrase "Big Four" is still meaningful and not just for historic reasons.

While we are certainly getting there, we are not there yet.

i don't get why you're so set on
1) "there has to be A big four" - especially if you say you're more of a big Three kind of guy and
2) "these four are joined at the hip and can only be replaced by a completely different set of players."

you say 'only 8000' are won by non-Big Four players - Stan was taking 5000 of those. in the same time period, Murray and Rafa each had 3000 and Roger 2000. if anything, that would be an argument to swap the swiss. The point share of that alternate Big Four would actually jump to 86.5% (with Novak only bringing in roughly half of those points). now that would be closer to a big four then the old ones. except that Stan was never that consistent; day in, day out, he wasn't a factor in the later stages of a lot of the big and medium tourneys. also, Roger was ranked pretty consistently ahead of him for a lot of the time.

and that's the thing: Novak, is the only one who has it all at the moment.

it used to be that they dominated as a group. for two years now, they haven't. you say will have to wait another year to call it over - that's okay with me, as my point will be proven.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

JS, you are right.

In the last two years, Roger has won only 2000 Big points and Murray has won only 3000 Big points. So, they total only 5000 points.

On the other hand, Stan has won 5000 points and Cilic has won 2000 points. They total 7000 points. So, surely if we replace Murray and Federer by Stan and Cilic, the group's market share goes up. So, even by my own simple criteria outlined, Big Four is gone and history. If I want to salvage, I have to dig deep to 3 years at least. I have not checked the arithmetic on that. But, I completely agree that if we are willing to go back to only two years from the current moment, Big 4 is done.

No, I am not insisting that there has to be some Big Four (not necessarilyt the old one).
It could be Big 3, It could be Big 2, It could be Big 1, It could be Big nothing as well.
However, I think we are in a Big 1 situation as illustrated below.

In the last two years, the members of the old Big 4 have won 29,000 points. But, their distribution is highly uneven.

Novak --- 17,000 pts. ---- 58.62% of the points won by Big 4
Rafa --- 7,000 pts. ---- 24.13% of the points won by Big 4
Andy --- 3,000 pts. ---- 10.34% of the points won by Big 4
Fed --- 2,000 pts. ---- 6.89% of the points won by Big 4.

If all members of the big four contributed equally, each one's percentage would be 25%.
Since, we don't expect uniform contribution, to allow for variation, we could say each one
should have contributed at least 12.5%. But, clearly Andy and Fed are contributing even below that.
Moreover, if we replace Andy & Fed by Stan and Cilic the group's market share increases.

Note also that if we are willing to drop Murray and Fed from Big 4, we still cannot call it as Big 2.
The reason is that if we confine to 2, the market share percentages between them would be

Novak ---- 70.8%
Rafa ---- 29.2%

That is too much of a variance to include Rafa in the group. Rafa is supposed to contribute 50%. As things won't be perfectly even, we should hold him accountable for at least 40% to pull his weight.
As that is not the case, he should be excluded from any BIG groups as well.

The only way to "salvage" big four is by altering the scheme and either going three years deep or giving credit for being a finalist in big events. Fed's ranking points creates an illusion as most of them are won by being a finalist or semifinalist in various events without actually collecting much marbles.

Anyway, the writing is on the wall. The "Big Four" are out, even if not right now, pretty soon.

 

[El Dude]

I started writing a long post with lots of stats, rankings, etc, but then got sick of myself so stopped and deleted it. But the gist of what I wanted to say is that if you look at the rankings, the Big Four held the top four slots from 2008-12, with shifting if still shared dominance between them. 2012 was undoubtedly the most balanced, the real pinnacle of the Big Four (and current era, imo). 2013 to the present has still seen dominance, but diminishing. I expect that to continue and peter out over the next 3-5 years, depending upon the longevity of Novak and Andy.

But to say that the era of the Big Four is over is a bit black-and-white. I'd rather look at the matter of degree.

I do have a useful chart which I've shared before, but will put up again that visually depicts their dominance. Maybe a bit later.

 

[El Dude]

OK, I've posted an older version of this before but I updated it and adjusted it to make the Slams, WTF, and Masters of diference sizes to depict relative importance. As you can see, after almost total dominance from 2011-13, except for that lone Masters from Ferrer, things are starting to shift over the last couple years, although still clearly dominated by Novak in particular.

 

[Fiero425]

OK, I've posted an older version of this before but I updated it and adjusted it to make the Slams, WTF, and Masters of diference sizes to depict relative importance. As you can see, after almost total dominance from 2011-13, except for that lone Masters from Ferrer, things are starting to shift over the last couple years, although still clearly dominated by Novak in particular.

Not much "white" in there; SHOCKING!! :eyepop Thanks! :lolz: :angel: :dodgy:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the big 4 is not in existence anymore..it is history now. you cannot keep suspending reality and pretending the old days are still happening, they are not.

nadal has won nothing at all apart from an atp250 for a whole year.

at least murray and Federer won some masters, been in major finals recently, although they haven't been particulary 'big' either. it's all over, let it go.

 

[Moxie]

the big 4 is not in existence anymore..it is history now. you cannot keep suspending reality and pretending the old days are still happening, they are not.

nadal has won nothing at all apart from an atp250 for a whole year.

at least murray and Federer won some masters, been in major finals recently, although they haven't been particulary 'big' either. it's all over, let it go.

Waning, surely, but look at El Dude's graph. There's not a lot of "Non-Big Four" white in there. The babies are still babies, and the mid-fielders are not really holding up their end. Big contenders for Wimbledon are still Murray, Djokovic and Federer. That doesn't sound like the Death Knell to me. Let's see how it looks by the end of the year.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the big 4 is not in existence anymore..it is history now. you cannot keep suspending reality and pretending the old days are still happening, they are not.

nadal has won nothing at all apart from an atp250 for a whole year.

at least murray and Federer won some masters, been in major finals recently, although they haven't been particulary 'big' either. it's all over, let it go.

Waning, surely, but look at El Dude's graph. There's not a lot of "Non-Big Four" white in there. The babies are still babies, and the mid-fielders are not really holding up their end. Big contenders for Wimbledon are still Murray, Djokovic and Federer. That doesn't sound like the Death Knell to me. Let's see how it looks by the end of the year.

I was thinking as a block, if nadal isn't doing it for over a year then the big four is not big or a four, by definition.

a sunny day is not a sunny day if it is dark and cloudy.

 

[Moxie]

the big 4 is not in existence anymore..it is history now. you cannot keep suspending reality and pretending the old days are still happening, they are not.

nadal has won nothing at all apart from an atp250 for a whole year.

at least murray and Federer won some masters, been in major finals recently, although they haven't been particulary 'big' either. it's all over, let it go.

Waning, surely, but look at El Dude's graph. There's not a lot of "Non-Big Four" white in there. The babies are still babies, and the mid-fielders are not really holding up their end. Big contenders for Wimbledon are still Murray, Djokovic and Federer. That doesn't sound like the Death Knell to me. Let's see how it looks by the end of the year.

I was thinking as a block, if nadal isn't doing it for over a year then the big four is not big or a four, by definition.

a sunny day is not a sunny day if it is dark and cloudy.

But the sun may yet come out tomorrow. Dark and stormy at the moment, but I don't think Nadal is done.

 

[Kirijax]

The Top Four are still the ones you need to beat in order to win a Grand Slam or any other tournament for that matter. Wawrinka had to beat Djokovic and Nadal at '14 Australia, Cilic had to get through Federer at '14 U.S. Open and now Wawrinka had to beat Federer and Djokovic at '15 French. As long as that is the requirement to win a title, the Top Four are still it for me. But it is not as strong as it use to be.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Waning, surely, but look at El Dude's graph. There's not a lot of "Non-Big Four" white in there. The babies are still babies, and the mid-fielders are not really holding up their end. Big contenders for Wimbledon are still Murray, Djokovic and Federer. That doesn't sound like the Death Knell to me. Let's see how it looks by the end of the year.

I was thinking as a block, if nadal isn't doing it for over a year then the big four is not big or a four, by definition.

a sunny day is not a sunny day if it is dark and cloudy.

But the sun may yet come out tomorrow. Dark and stormy at the moment, but I don't think Nadal is done.

i don't think he's done either, sunshine may visit him again in terms of getting back towards business end of majors/masters, but it does not alter the fact rafa's been very 'unbig4ish' for a whole year.

ergo the big4 cannot exist. a record of 36-15 is not getting rafa on the guestlist of the big4 club. maybe if he takes his suntan lotion he could get into Club Tropicana.

 

[El Dude]

Jesus, it depends upon what you mean by "Big Four." This reminds me of Kieran's stubborn insistence that "GOAT" is meaningless because we haven't experience "all time" yet. As I've said to K, GOAT is meant to be "GOATSF" - with the "SF" being "so far."

Similarly, when we talk about Big Four dominance it doesn't have to only be them at their best and most dominant. As I said above, it isn't black and white. If "black" is total dominance 2012-style, they're still a solid darkish grey.

 

[Moxie]

Jesus, it depends upon what you mean by "Big Four." This reminds me of Kieran's stubborn insistence that "GOAT" is meaningless because we haven't experience "all time" yet. As I've said to K, GOAT is meant to be "GOATSF" - with the "SF" being "so far."

Similarly, when we talk about Big Four dominance it doesn't have to only be them at their best and most dominant. As I said above, it isn't black and white. If "black" is total dominance 2012-style, they're still a solid darkish grey.

I never heard this "so-far" business. And I don't see what it has to do with this conversation, but we can leave that for another day. That's historical, and this is still about the tennis world we're living in. I agree with "darkish grey." Until they stop being reasonably considered the top contenders for the biggest prizes, they are still the ones to beat, even if their power is dissipating. (As the full 4. Djokovic is still in full flower, and Murray probably.) If there were others jumping up to wrest away the mantle, it would be different, but they really aren't, so much.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah but they're not the ones to beat, that's the problem. Rafa was the one to beat in Paris, until he was beaten, but the player who beat him didn't win it. Fedal aren't reaching slam semis now, or finals. If it was four years ago, we'd be guaranteed a response which consisted of brutal reprisals and victory, but now they're in danger of becoming what Mac was to Sampras, and what Borg was to Mac, and what Laver was to Borg: famous notches on the bedpost....

EDIT: for the record, I don't think Rafa is done, either, but that doesn't negate the demise of this concept of Big 3 or 4 (there's never been a 4, though). If Nole and Andy share things between them for the next three years - if - then that doesn't keep it alive, even if Rafa picks up a couple of majors...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Jesus, it depends upon what you mean by "Big Four." This reminds me of Kieran's stubborn insistence that "GOAT" is meaningless because we haven't experience "all time" yet. As I've said to K, GOAT is meant to be "GOATSF" - with the "SF" being "so far."

Similarly, when we talk about Big Four dominance it doesn't have to only be them at their best and most dominant. As I said above, it isn't black and white. If "black" is total dominance 2012-style, they're still a solid darkish grey.

I never heard this "so-far" business. And I don't see what it has to do with this conversation, but we can leave that for another day.

Not to divert from the conversation too much and it did seem kinda random that El Dude gave that analogy, but, he's right. The insistence on semantics for the "GOAT" thing is pretty silly. It's a given that we don't know the future, so using that as a reason as to why there is no such thing as GOAT is a cop out. Nobody discusses who's the GOAT because we'd like to predict the future, but rather, because we want to determine who's the best player in tennis to date... in other words, "so far." I always chuckled when people used that as a reason why there is no such thing as GOAT. OK, maybe not, but then replace GOAT with another term. It's not the acronym we're interested in.